From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 2 17:14:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B794106564A for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:14:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59A38FC08 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24837 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2010 17:14:07 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Oct 2010 17:14:07 -0000 Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.6]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7391550835 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 603F21CC20; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:13:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: FreeBSD References: <4ca708f4.svuMWmkOCHSjxBDf%mueller6727@bellsouth.net> <90CBD45F-CB00-4656-A5BB-836FE6401B8A@polands.org> <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:13:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101002115541.0e8996e4@scorpio> (Jerry's message of "Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:55:41 -0400") Message-ID: <44wrq0plf0.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Massive portupgrade without being interrupted by configuration screens? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:14:08 -0000 Jerry writes: > On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:05:33 -0500 > Doug Poland articulated: > >> If I understand the OPs question correctly, I believe setting the >> environment variable BATCH=yes will give desired results with >> portupgrade. This will cause port compile defaults to be used in >> lieu of an existing /var/db/ports/*/options file. > > I was of the opinion, and I could be wrong, that setting 'BATCH=yes' > simply stopped the build process from attempting to create an options > file; however, it would use an existing one if it was present. Perhaps > someone with more intimate knowledge of this would care to comment. I > say this because I have used the BATCH technique once I had all of my > ports configured the way I wanted. Subsequent updates always appeared to > use any existing configuration files. In two minutes of looking at bsd.port.mk, I confirmed that this is correct.